Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2021

Johnson v. Landess Institute LLC

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:20-cv-08113
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Landess Institute LLC, Judge Davila ordered Johnson to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson, who was required to explain his failure to meet the mediation-notice deadline and was warned that the action could be dismissed with prejudice if he did not respond.

What happened

In Johnson v. Landess Institute LLC, Scott Johnson sued Landess Institute LLC and other defendants. The case was filed on November 18, 2020.

The court said Johnson missed the deadline to notify the court that mediation was needed and did not ask for more time. The court ordered him to submit a written response explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward.

Judge Edward J. Davila set a response deadline of July 26, 2021, and a hearing for August 5, 2021. The court warned that if Johnson did not respond, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Landess Institute LLC · No. 5:20-cv-08113
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
July 13, 2021

Background

Scott Johnson filed this action against Landess Institute LLC and other defendants on November 18, 2020. Under the court's procedures, the parties' last day to conduct a joint site inspection was January 27, 2021. Johnson's last day to file a notice stating that mediation was needed was March 10, 2021.

Johnson did not file that notice and did not ask the court for relief from the March 10 deadline.

Order to Show Cause

The court invoked its inherent authority to dismiss a case to achieve the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Johnson to file a written response by July 26, 2021, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Failure to prosecute means failing to move a case forward.

The court also ordered Johnson to appear at a hearing on August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The court warned that if Johnson failed to file the written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed in this order.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order to show cause rather than entering the threatened dismissal. The order required Johnson to respond and warned that the court would dismiss the action with prejudice if he did not do so.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.